Cost comparison of prophylactic vs. on-demand use of a 1:1 ratio pdVWF/FVIII concentrate in type 3 von willebrand disease with severe bleeding phenotype in the United States: A payer and societal perspective
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Long-term prophylaxis with von Willebrand factor (VWF) concentrate is recommended for patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD) who experience frequent and severe bleeding episodes. However, few cost-effectiveness or cost-comparison studies have evaluated prophylaxis versus on-demand (OD) treatment with VWF concentrates, and most rely on assumptions or literature-based inputs. This study presents a cost comparison of Wilate® prophylaxis versus OD treatment in patients with Type 3 VWD and a severe bleeding phenotype, using real-world prospective data from the WIL-29 and WIL-31 phase 3 studies. A unique feature of this analysis is the intrapatient comparison: the same individuals were treated with OD therapy in WIL-29 (6 months) and subsequently received prophylactic treatment in WIL-31 (12 months), enabling robust, patient-level comparative data. Methods A lifetime horizon cost model was developed from both a U.S. payer and societal perspective. Clinical inputs were derived directly from WIL-29 and WIL-31 studies, including observed Wilate® dosing, breakthrough bleeding rates, and treatment consumption. Healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) costs for minor and major bleeds were estimated from published literature. Societal costs were calculated using bleed duration data from the studies, to estimate productivity loss. Subgroup analyses were conducted for adults and adult women with Type 3 VWD. All costs were adjusted to 2025 U.S. dollars. Results In the overall Type 3 VWD population with a severe bleeding phenotype, prophylactic use of Wilate® was cost-saving, with an average annual cost of $293,851, compared to $304,240 for OD treatment, resulting in annual savings of $10,389 per patient. Even greater annual savings were observed among all adults ($52,720/year) and adult women ($124,737/year). Over a lifetime, prophylaxis was projected to yield cumulative savings of $298,504 for the overall population, $1,514,820 for adults, and $3,584,070 for adult women. Inclusion of productivity loss further increased the annual economic advantage of prophylaxis by an additional $43,002 per patient per year. These findings highlight the substantial clinical and economic burden of OD therapy and the value of long-term prophylactic treatment in this patient population. Conclusions This is the first cost comparison of prophylaxis versus OD treatment in Type 3 VWD based on prospective, intrapatient data, a design that enhances reliability by minimizing variability across treatment phases. The model's strength lies in its real-world clinical inputs, integration of societal costs considerations, and focus on patients with severe bleeding phenotypes. The results demonstrate that Wilate® prophylaxis delivers not only meaningful clinical benefits as demonstrated in the clinical trials, but also significant cost-savings, especially among adult women where the economic impact was most pronounced. These findings support the expanded use of VWF concentrate prophylaxis within comprehensive VWD management strategies. Future research incorporating broader direct/indirect costs, including those related to long-term health outcomes, e.g., joint deterioration, chronic anaemia, heavy menstrual bleeds, mental health and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), may further strengthen the economic and therapeutic value of prophylactic treatment.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».